Police Disclosure of Information Gained at Interviews
| Author | JA Coutts |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201839906300625 |
| Published date | 01 December 1999 |
| Date | 01 December 1999 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Police
Disclosure
of
Information
Gained
at
Interviews
5. Is dismissal appropriate even in a case in which the commanding
officer thinks that it is
not
(and is willing to have him back)?
6. Where imprisonment would be imposed by a civilian court,
should service detention be imposed, in view of the conse-
quences of that sentence to a serving member of the forces?
7.
If
service detention is imposed, what should be its duration,
taking into account the effect of duration (for example, dismissal
for one year or more)?
The effect of applying these guidelines was that in all three cases before
the court the sentence imposed by each court-martial was reduced,
although in
one
case this was
not
attributable to the fact
that
the
offence
had been committed in a 'service context'.
Police Disclosure of Information Gained at Interviews
Woolgar
v Chief
Constable
of
Sussex
[1999] 3 All ER 604
Following the death of a patient in a nursing home, the police arrested
and interviewed the matron,
but
eventually discontinued their invest-
igations without making any criminal charge against the matron. The
General Council of the regulatory body of the nursing profession in the
UK (UKGC), which is also a disciplinary body with power to remove a
nurse's
name
from the register, had the matter referred to it. It began its
investigation
and
inquiry and, following its usual practice on such
occasions, it asked the police to disclose whatever information they
possessed as a result of their investigations which was relevant to
the
UKGC's inquiry. The police followed their normal practice on such
occasions
and
sought the consent of
the
matron to the release of details
of their interview to the
UKGC
for the (sole) purpose of their use in the
Council inquiry. The matron, advised by
her
trade union, refused
her
consent. The police, however, informed the matron
and
the
Council that
they intended to replay the tapes of the interview, for the purpose of
then
deciding
whether
to disclose their contents to the
UKGC,
notwith-
standing the matron's dissent. She applied to the court for an injunction
restraining the police from divulging
the
contents of the interview. That
application was dismissed by the High Court judge
and
an appeal from
that decision was taken to the Court of Appeal.
The appellant submitted that information received by
the
police in
the course of an interview with asuspect as part of their investigation
into asuspected crime is confidential in
the
sense
that
it
must
not
be
divulged to anyone for any purpose
other
than that of criminal pro-
ceedings, contemplated or proceeding. The police accepted this general
principle,
but
they submitted
that
when
a public body, established as a
regulatory body in the field of public health or safety, asks
them
for
information in their possession to assist
them
in making aformal inquiry
which it is their duty to make, the police are entitled (and may be
565
To continue reading
Request your trial